Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Theoretical learning versus practical learning
mindatrisk
Veteran
Hello 
I learn and develop much more through living a compassionate life than through studying (including meditating on) compassion, and I expected that most Buddhists would be similar, since practical practice would seem to be more dynamic than theoretical. However, at the end of last year I went to a Buddhist retreat for a week, and in one of their main meditation halls there were large windows with lots and lots of flies trapped. Now, at home when I see a fly trapped on a window I catch it and let it out, and I began to do so there, but with so many flies I decided to ask for help thinking that all the Buddhist monks and nuns there would leap at the chance to practice their compassion... So, at lunch time I asked a large group of residents, including monks and nuns, who would like to help me catch the flies, and not one person offered, instead they all put their heads down and looked away, until one girl recognising the awkwardness of the situation offered to help (she didn't help however).
Leaving aside the perils of me projecting my expectations onto others, I was really surprised and, somewhat, disappointed. I understand when I am at home why my parents, friends, colleagues do not catch flies, because we do not live in an overtly compassionate society, and most people do not seem to consider insects as living a worthwhile existence (something that makes my brain twitch!), but to go to a Buddhist centre with real nuns and monks and see them reject such a simple chance to practice their compassion made me wonder about the merits of their teachings.
I understand that being a monk or a nun is no measure of personal development, it simply reflects their present dedication, but it wasn't like they were being presented with child abusers or rapists or seriel killers to express compassion to, whereby I can accept that this could be a significant challenge to their compassion, instead these were innocent lifeforms trapped in a tortuous situation that will lead to their death, and for the sake of spending a bit of time with a cup and a piece of paper and doing a little bit of chasing around, it hardly seems like much to be asked of. And I say 'asked of', but to me - and again I am projecting - they cannot not have been aware of the flies, and so to not desire to help and help on their own volition is surprising enough.
So, what does everyone else think? Do you personally find more value in studing, contemplating and meditating on compassionate action, or by simply getting on with expressing compassionate action? Of course, both go hand in hand, but hypothetically speaking, would you place more value on experiencing a profound loving-kindness meditation where you feel great love for all living creatures but are not in that moment actually acting on that love, or on, for example, saving flies from their window trappings?
Thank you.
I learn and develop much more through living a compassionate life than through studying (including meditating on) compassion, and I expected that most Buddhists would be similar, since practical practice would seem to be more dynamic than theoretical. However, at the end of last year I went to a Buddhist retreat for a week, and in one of their main meditation halls there were large windows with lots and lots of flies trapped. Now, at home when I see a fly trapped on a window I catch it and let it out, and I began to do so there, but with so many flies I decided to ask for help thinking that all the Buddhist monks and nuns there would leap at the chance to practice their compassion... So, at lunch time I asked a large group of residents, including monks and nuns, who would like to help me catch the flies, and not one person offered, instead they all put their heads down and looked away, until one girl recognising the awkwardness of the situation offered to help (she didn't help however).
Leaving aside the perils of me projecting my expectations onto others, I was really surprised and, somewhat, disappointed. I understand when I am at home why my parents, friends, colleagues do not catch flies, because we do not live in an overtly compassionate society, and most people do not seem to consider insects as living a worthwhile existence (something that makes my brain twitch!), but to go to a Buddhist centre with real nuns and monks and see them reject such a simple chance to practice their compassion made me wonder about the merits of their teachings.
I understand that being a monk or a nun is no measure of personal development, it simply reflects their present dedication, but it wasn't like they were being presented with child abusers or rapists or seriel killers to express compassion to, whereby I can accept that this could be a significant challenge to their compassion, instead these were innocent lifeforms trapped in a tortuous situation that will lead to their death, and for the sake of spending a bit of time with a cup and a piece of paper and doing a little bit of chasing around, it hardly seems like much to be asked of. And I say 'asked of', but to me - and again I am projecting - they cannot not have been aware of the flies, and so to not desire to help and help on their own volition is surprising enough.
So, what does everyone else think? Do you personally find more value in studing, contemplating and meditating on compassionate action, or by simply getting on with expressing compassionate action? Of course, both go hand in hand, but hypothetically speaking, would you place more value on experiencing a profound loving-kindness meditation where you feel great love for all living creatures but are not in that moment actually acting on that love, or on, for example, saving flies from their window trappings?
Thank you.
0
Comments
True love arises from relationship and clarity. When we see the suffering of any form and we can digest that suffering in our hearts then naturally there is a compassionate outflow.
If that open heart is blocked, which in the case of most human beings it is... then compassion does not flow. To those beings its just another bug or another person, what does it have to do with me?
Meditation can be total mental masturbation. So can ethics, philosophy and religion.
But I want to share something with you.
I once saw a true bodhisattva. He was working in a soup kitchen feeding those who needed food. It was simple and heart breaking. But this person embodied what practice and life can yield.
If we do not bring our practice into real life then it is just another form of masturbation. Another form of self improvement or avoidance. And we should really reexamine why we are here doing this uncomfortable and at times difficult practice of examining our shortcomings and seeing why our hearts closed up in the first place.
=]
So in short do whatever the hell works for you to open up your heart again. That could be a lot of metta meditation. Could be therapy. It could be hanging out with your kids.
Then maybe you can be of use to this burning world.
I see practice as a way to improve my playing, but they are made of the same stuff--either way, I'm ultimately playing the violin. I can practice in private, though, and be better prepared to play in public; I can also work individual passages over and over again, in private, whereas in public I wouldn't do that. I think of Buddhist practice as very similar; if I'm having anger issues, then working on antidotes, in private, over and over, makes be better prepared for "public performance" (i.e. facing the real deal).
Both practice, and public performance, inform one another--the practice conditions you for a better public performance, and the public performance (however it turns out) informs your next practice session.
In general, I think Buddhist practice (mind training) is very comparable to music or sports training. Many of the same concepts apply.
So, I am not judging them, as there is evidently a good reason for the disconnect between their discipline and their practice... but what is that disconnect? Is it simple laziness? Have they confronted the issue of the flies previously and become desensitized to their plight? I suppose that, karmically, the presence of the flies is ultimately their to inform their practice and provide the opportunity to expand their compassion, and maybe my request for help will have triggered that awareness a little... but I am still struggling to reconcile the life dedication to a practice whose essence is the relieving of suffering and the blatant disregard for the suffering of a living being within their own meditation hall.
I loved this post. Boy you sound like me...but
Masters, monks & layfolks can be looked at a folks who are just trying to be open to ego's conditioning and to stop feeding it. If it wasn't one of the toughest processes to engage in, everyone would be doing it.
Tougher questions are
Is there a difference between an intent to be compassionate and actually being wisely compassionate? (the road to hell being paved with good intentions)
Is what looks like an act of compassion really just in support of ones ego?
Firstly take all those folk of that pedestal. Despite robes and a commitment to life dedication, they are just like you, doing the best that they can. Any of them could look at failings in your own practise and be texting here about a fellow retreat doofas.
You have chosen to use a yardstick of your view of compassion to measure the worth of their practise. If this is what you spiritually excel in...great. .
I do not know of a monastery or retreat centre that would not be doing exactly what you did, but I have also seen that each linage & school has their own strengths and weaknesses. Mindfully collecting & freeing those flies was probably a great teaching for all that observed it, but in your case it also seems to have resulted in judgementalism (that you deny that you have) about others.
You may also find that the next time you go, others will already be adopting your catch & save compassion teachings.
The Diamond Sutra says:
And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion (samjna) of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being'. 'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul (jiva) or of a person (pudgala).'
In the highest knowledge, from the standpoint of the absolute, no beings really exist the way we imagine they do. There is no fly being, no human being. These are empty designations. If you become a Buddha, as strange as it seems to you now, you will have saved all beings—even trapped flies. You will be in a state of mahakarunacitta: the great compassionate mind.
You can still save those flies just drop all your concepts (samjna); see the way things really are (yathabhutam).
I'm not sure if the flies reference is metaphorical, but I have spent many hours with nuns removing deceased flies and other bugs from the temple and putting them in the garden.
Is there a difference between an intent to be compassionate and actually being wisely compassionate?
It would seem so on the surface, however, intent by its nature must be sincere - you can't have a 'false intention', and, so, in any position where you intend to be compassionate then, unless there are particular reasons why your intent cannot be put into action, your intent will naturally arise into action... in other words, intent and action are one and the same until we perceive / create an obstacle that we believe separates the two, i.e. that we are powerless to help etc. The 'wisely' aspect of your question would be one such perceived obstacle that we create that seemingly separates intent from action. It is our misperception that we are without wisdom and in need of acquiring it that seems to create a difference in your question.
Is what looks like an act of compassion really just in support of ones ego?
This would come down to your intent and, to be able to answer that question, knowing your intent. Take my example of catching flies from windows and letting them outside... this is an action I do both privately and publicly. When in public then it could be seen by some as pretentious as - by societies standards - it seems to be taking compassion to an extreme, maybe almost as if to demonstrate how wonderful and caring am I... If this were the case then I think it would be evidently an ego construct. However, in private, when no-one is around to see, I still catch the flies and let them outside.
With regards the monks and nuns... I have put them on a pedestal and projected my standards upon them. I think this is only natural when you first encounter other dedicated souls, especially when within your own circumstances you don't have other spiritual friends by which to measure yourself and your own standards. I went to the retreat expecting to meet people there whose compassion would blow my mind... but I didn't find it, and it confused me, to be honest, because for so long I have been desperate to meet other people who I could look up to and learn from... this situation with the flies doesn't negate that, but it has somewhat undermined my belief in them.
Now, another individual could look at my life and do the same comparison and pick out where my compassion lacks... and it wouldn't be a difficult achievement, BUT, the thing with the flies is that it is a life and death issue. As Buddhists we seek to relieve the suffering of all living beings... this is the essence of our practice, and so this disconnect mystifies me. It's not about being judgemental of them, but rather identifying what was missing that, essentially, allowed them to shrug their shoulders. Maybe most of them were not aware that there was a fly issue in their meditation hall, but when they were made aware of it then surely their years of study, reflection and meditation on developing compassion for all living beings would have erupted to the surface when the realisation occurred that there were living beings who were suffering who they could help...??? It is that disconnect - a missing link perhaps - between their practice and their actions when an opportunity arises that I am mystified by.
Perhaps this is a consequence of removing yourself from evident suffering into a place where suffering is limited and therefore theoretical practice reigns over practical practice...? It goes back to your original question... If they sincerely wish for the relief of suffering of all living beings then they would naturally have acted to save the flies... the fact that they didn't even lends evidence to the notion that intent and action are two separate forces or, as I suggested, that obstacles have been perceived / created that have allowed the illusion of separation of intent and action.
Thanks for your thoughts.
It is good to hear that the nuns you spend time with have demonstrated their compassion... that warms my heart.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Were they going to kill the flies, or were they just uninterested in evicting them at that point, do you know?
Our sangha takes the flies etc. quite seriously; it was the first time I had met people who not only treated the living insects with respect, but even the dead bodies. Whenever we clean the temple we take the (gazillions) of dead flies and ladybugs carefully out to the garden, blowing mantras on them etc. It was rather humbling, as I'd always considered myself respectful of life, but this went beyond even what I had done up to then with insects.
Thanks for your deeeeeeep insights.
I love the sound of your sangha. Were you all active in attempting to save the flies and bugs too, or just in respecting their bodies when they had died? It'd be nice if there was a concerted effort to save a few of the gazillion bugs... as nice as giving them a good send off is, i'd rather just stay alive and postpone the eulogies!
I posted these questions only to show that compassion without wisdom can be an action worthy of careful consideration. Yeah, my writing can be obtuse,
The most obvious difference between an intent to be compassionate and the manifestation of wise compassion is in the effect that is produced.
A charity wishing to help starving children is good. Sending children powdered milk that their metabolism can not absorb is just another good intent that is actually causing harm. If the good intent was wise then part of that act would have included making sure that the food product sent would have been usable.
Compassion mired with ego is often just an action tripping over it's own ideals. Real beyond ego's grasp, love & wisdom.
Real compassion evolves through empathy, sympathy, tenderness, benevolence and
when beyond ego's touch, love & wisdom.
All of this is just to say that having a compassionate intent is of fundamental importance in a practise but don't count it as beneficial unless it can be birthed free of ego's taint and applied with skillful means.
One of the interesting lessons of compassion is that it's limits are whatever one can't be open to or let go of.
My advice is: Don't place monks and nuns on a pedestal. There are some really great ones out there, but there are also those who are not that great. It's just like that. Just like there are great and not so great lay people.
Some are great at certain types of meditation, but can't yet really put it into action. Maybe their compassion only lasts as long as the meditation. Others are good at study, but aren't great meditators. Some are great in action but not in words, etc etc. But maybe their intentions were ok. If you try to catch flies, it's also very easy to hurt them. Perhaps they didn't want to take that risk. I don't know, just guessing here.
But eventually, I think all has to go hand in hand. Compassion will lead to action, you can't just have compassion and do nothing if you can help out, at least, that's my experience. Ultimate reality or not, doesn't matter. If I see a fly in an awkward situation in my place, I try to help it out as reasonable as possible also when I know it is not really a 'being' in that sense.
Anyway, it sucks a bit to place faith and hope into others and see that get hurt in whatever way. Doesn't even have to be action or words, it can also be a teacher who 'suddenly' starts to teach something you know or feel isn't right. Therefore, be very careful who you place your faith in. Real enlightened people are rare and not easy to recognize, so if you place your faith 'out there', you can get disappointed. Best to place your faith mostly in the Buddha.
Metta!
Sabre
I'm leaning towards not putting anyone on a pedistal - they're only going to fall off and disappoint you - perhaps this is a good lesson for you - to separate the philosophy from the practitioner - e.g. I may say that I live my life without killing anything - you may like to live your life the same way - you may notice that I kill something - that just means that I was unable to live by the philosophy - it doesnt take anything away from you or your efforts.
Perhaps another way to look at it is to consider your desire to have everyone muck in with your expression of your practice - do you think this is because you needed people to assist with the flies as there were too many or you wanted to selflessly give them the opportunity to practice compassion or you needed someone to affirm your practice etc etc - it's probably a mixture of a few of them or more.
You could well have just released the flies yourself - what does it matter if you were alone in your endeavour if it was an expression of your practice... if others joined in so be it - if not so be it - either way, the flies are released, job done... no need to judge anyone's practice but your own.
Perhaps the people there thought you were being disrespectful, saying that their home is "unclean" because of all the flies or something. You can't know their intentions, but you can know yours. Maybe it would be fruitful to consider your actions and intentions and that might give you some insight into why they reacted like they did?
It's a big thing to say that your actions were compassionate and that you were disappointed in theirs as being not compassionate, and I would make sure that's absolutely true first and foremost.
We rarely have pure intentions, there's a selfish side to most of our actions, and that's totally fine, as long as we're aware of them, because if we're not we can grow ourselves a pretty big ego.
So that's what I would do if I were in your shoes and was pondering the situation - look at my intentions rather than trying to second guess theirs.
I'm not saying your intentions weren't pure, I have no idea, but I know it's a trap I've fallen into a few times so I thought I'd share just in case you're going through something similar.
As for theoretical learning and practical application, I think they go hand in hand. You discover an idea and then you test it's validity. I don't think you have to choose between one or the other, they both have their merits and you can do both.
But I live in Wisconsin - even though I prefer the idea of bugs being "free" outside as opposed to "trapped" inside, I often wonder if I'm doing them any favors.
An aside--ladybugs get dehydrated very easily and are very happy for drops of water--kind of fun to watch them drink them. I fed a fading ladybug a dollop of mango smoothie the other day, which was VERY well received.
I think one reason I sort of dote on bugs is that there are just so many beings I am helpless to save at any given moment; even though a bug is tiny, at least it's right there and I can actually do something for it.
It could be the monks thought the flies were safer inside; also, some Buddhists believe it is good for animals to be in the presence of Buddhas and other statues, scriptures, etc., and that they receive a blessing. There is also generally (in my experience) a certain respect for an animal's choice; if an animal (or human) has come to the temple, in my experience many people assume it is for a reason, and are hesitant to interfere.
Just thoughts--I don't know what was happening in your particular situation. I know how disheartening it can be to be the only one interested in a creature's well-being.
In more direct terms, what animates these these flies, fleas, bacteria, etc., is the very same thing that animates each of us, right now, which Gautama discovered long ago. Come into direct union with it (samyaksamadhi) and there you will gain mahakarunacitta (the great loving mind/spirit). Short of this, obscured by concepts (samjna), there is a long road to travel to Nirvana City.
One of the main comments has been around considering my own motive for inviting the monks and nuns to help me with the flies...
I can definitely say that I wasn't trying to test them - that isn't in my nature, and when I asked then I did so with absolute certainty that they'd wish to participate.
Did I wish to demonstrate my own compassion... maybe prove myself a little bit? This is one i'd need to consider more carefully. This situation occurred last November, so in all honesty I can't remember what I was thinking at the moment I asked them. However, I have definitely been 'guilty' in the past of wanting to be seen as 'spiritual' and so attempting to demonstrate this in somewhat contrived manners. I think this stems from a general lack of acknowledgement from my parents and family about my spiritual growth that made me feel very insecure for a longtime and in need of acknowledgement. However, the reason I was at the retreat was because I was taking service users (I volunteered in an organisation with recovering addicts) over to do a working week to get a taste of the Buddhist lifestyle, teachings etc. So, if I was in need at the time of being seen as compassionate, then that in itself would have been sufficient, and I hardly needed to embellish it with catching flies too... or maybe I am that desperate for thumbs up!
It's hard to say what my motives were. It is likely that they were mixed between all the various aspects, and that doesn't surprise me or shame me, because i've become well aware of how complex this eternal untangling of the knot of self is.
I am still confused about their lack of willingness to help. I'm not sure that I am conveying quite how disparate the whole situation seemed to me... I mean, if I was sat with a whole group of firemen and I saw a fire and pointed it out then they would all jump up and immediately set to action. It wouldn't matter if some were rookies and inexperienced, or that some couldn't bothered, or that some were only in the fire service to attract women through their uniforms... because their training would supersede all these variables and result in definite action every time. Why would Buddhist practice be any different or any less urgent? The very essence of Buddhism is to relieve the suffering of living beings, to not do that when you are aware and capable of doing so is surely to render yourself not-Buddhist... just in the same way that a fireman who chooses not to fight a fire would render themselves in nature as not-a-fireman regardless of their uniform and title.
I guess, what it comes down to is defining what a Buddhist is. Taking the vows for some may mean you are a Buddhist regardless of how you act thereafter (consider the gambling, drinking monks from the other thread). But to me, a Buddhist is defined by their adherence to the essence of the Buddhist life, and ultimately that is compassionate living. It doesn't matter whether you meditate all day, or whether you are a monk or nun, or whether you have studied every scripture... because all of these are nothing but the tools that are meant to enable our compassionate action, all of which are dispensable if we master the core ideal... but that core ideal - compassionate action - unlike meditation, vows, scripture is not and never will be dispensable if you are a Buddhist. Because of this you do not even need to know of Buddhism to be a Buddhist... Jesus was the perfect Boddhisatva, Gandhi too, yet neither proclaimed themselves to follow any Buddhist traditions in particular, but through their compassionate actions alone they embodied the Buddha nature.
I can't get beyond the sense that taking compassionate action for a Buddhist should be as urgent and essential as fighting a fire is to a fireman. Thank you for all your thoughts
I think I understand your need to release the flies that were trapped because if one follows the precepts, one must harbor compassion toward all living beings. But, this is not a strict guideline. It is not the law. In Buddhism, one must tread The Middle Way and give himself some slacks. To be too linear is to break. The mighty oak falls before the weeping willow. Thus, don't be too hard pressed about flies being trapped.
In terms of sentient beings, for example, let us consider their origin of birth. There is spontaneous generation where flies and other pests arise. Though they live and breed, they came from filth. They are the personification/embodiment of disease, aka disease carrier. They have the potential to spread pathogen should they land on food, etc. Thus, killing them and or trapping them is not considered a heavy crime vs. if one is to kill a cat or a dog, etc.
The nuns and or monks in the retreat must have understood the skillfulness of this and did not get involve. Think about it. If one releases the flies after they flown into the trap in the first place, then one is negating the positive energy of the purpose of trapping them: to free the retreat from the pest so that meditation seekers could practice meditation with less hindrance, the least of which are flies.
In terms of skillfulness, to disrupt a person from his mental practice has a heavier consequence than to allow the flies to be trapped in the trapper. The Buddha said not to follow what he said or if the scholars said to do things, etc., but to use your intelligence to decipher if it is appropriate to do the action at all. It is important how we perceive the world with the knowledge or lack of it at our disposal. Because in this, it helps caution us to not make a generalize misconception. Because in any generalized misconception, it may lead us to have disillusionment and or disenchantment of something that is good. For example, the idea of the sangha practicing compassion at all cost.
The flies were being trapped on the inside window of their meditation hall... they buzzed and flew around and were a noticable presence during meditation. Of course, we make this part of our practice, but it does negate the possibility that they were leaving the flies to benefit meditation seekers.
That flies are the embodiment of disease - to me - seems like an arrogant human perspective. In relation to us they may carry what we consider diseases, and in relation to us they may seem filthy, but that is the nature and condition of their lifeform, and why should the value of their life be determined by how it relates to us? If that were the case then, given the huge environmental damage humans cause, every other species on the planet would be entitled to consider our lifeform as lesser than X,Y & Z, and therefore we would be permissable to extermination.
My interest in this issue has no relation to any law or guideline, but to the human heart. I want to know and understand why it was not in a practicing Buddhists heart to wish to relieve the suffering of those flies. Especially so because they live in a community away from societies many opportunities to act on their compassion and as such I would have thought that such a chance for compassionate action would be embraced. In terms of my practice, because good opportunities for compassionate action can be rare, catching flies is a wonderful chance to keep my compassion 'stoked' and my mind focused on relieving suffering.
Yes. I agree with you that when I consider it that way, it does seem barbaric and egotistical. In fact, if one thinks anything on a linear level, then surely it will break. I tend to catch myself a number of times when I say something to this effect. Then I find myself being frozen stiff and couldn't do anything or express anything due to the fear of being perceived as judgemental and or wrong. If I imply that it is wrong to do so, then my apologies. I am merely trying to offer my opinion given the scenerio. You may do as you wish with respect to your perception.
As it is your perception, you may wonder why nuns and or monks don't do what you hope they do given their station in the circle of life. Like others before me, they mention not putting monks and or nuns on a pedastal as one is attaching one's faith on a person, not fully enlightened as The Buddha at that, and when they don't meet one's expectation, the whole ideal collapses.
I am saying, free oneself from this misperception, and one can really see the harmony in things and not all bother up. Don't cleave to idealogy as much b/c it has the potential to break. A person ask a person to prove something that is true to him. How can it be so if his entire existence is unique? Do you see the fallacy of this logic? Even when one believes in The Buddha, The Buddha even mentioned to not take his words for it, or the scholars' words for it, or b/c Scriptures said so or Tradition saids so.
Edit:
I forgot to commend you for your compassionate act (good faith not sarcasm!) as you see fit. You see, everyone of us is unique. We do what we are enlightened in doing. The world is full of opportunities to do good. If you are enlightened in this compassionate act of saving the flies, do not think your effort is wasted. You have earned good merits as manifested in your good feeling of peaceful mind. However, to expect the same of others is not easy, even if they are Buddhists. They may have different perception and or understanding as to dictate their action. This is to be said by anybody who is not even a Buddhist.
So, when you expected any Buddhist to practice what they preach or seeming to preach, you may inadvertantly assisted in the misconception of Buddhism as a religion. It is not easy to see that while adherents may represent the religion, nontheless, they are still separate individuals. Plus, here is the catch. A person's retribution is not based on any fixed system as perceived. It is based on his own karmic force. Thus, worry not what others do, but what one, himself, does. Even if a person takes the precept and fails at it, there is no law that he lost his merit and couldn't reform himself. He'll practice until he is good at it, until he founds Enlightenment (Tolerance in Buddhism).
Thus, precepts are there to help a person, not punish him. He has all the practice, however slow or fast he wants with any precept he takes. But, I forget. You are referring to the heart of a person. Even this is similarly. A person's compassion has to be developed and honed, though potentially all human species on Earth has it. Even the animal species.
I've been following this discussion intermittently, so forgive me if I have missed anything crucial.
My question is what your action would be if you found an infestation of flies or maggots in your home, perhaps in your pantry right next to a lump of sugar, or fruit, or whatever food you have.
Would you get rid of them? Would you bring in some bug spray? What would you expect a monk or nun would do after they had finished training and come back into the real world, living in an apartment, or wherever, and find something similar?
Is it really arrogant for an individual to wish to be clean from a disease carrying bug? What if your home, or this temple, had an infestation of rats?
Personally I would find other ways, and think other thoughts, to try express compassion, than to consider the fate of flies. That may be arrogant; but you know, there is probably a homeless person living around the corner from me who I should devote time to. That would be a more productive and compassionate use of time. The fact that I don't do so is probably worse karma than "bad karma" that I have gotten from killing a maggot, which had found its way in my pantry, in the past.
MK
My thoughts are not so much about the individual monks and nuns, but about the training itself. I used a comparison earlier with firefighters... they are trained to fight fires, and it doesn't matter if they are a rookie, or if they are having a bad day, or if a fire is considered small and meaningless, or any other potential perceived obstacle / excuse, because if there is a fire then they fight it. My point is why does Buddhist training not impel that same urgency? A Buddhist lives to relieve the suffering of living beings in the same way that a firefighter lives to fight fires. Yet a Buddhist would rarely be required to put their lives on the line, so how is it that a firefighter can be trained to do their job so well whilst managing to overcome the strength of their survival instinct, but when a Buddhist only needs to catch some flies they turn their heads? Is it THAT hard to train compassionate action? Is it that hard to motivate individuals to perform compassionate action even if they don't feel compassion? I mean, I bet there are days when firefighters don't want to fight fires, but they still do it.
What I am coming to through all of this is the feeling that either a. Buddhist teachings are insufficient, or b. we as Buddhists are not utilising the teachings effectively... and I say this because, if human beings can be trained to risk their lives to put out fires without excuses and without consideration of circumstances, then why can Buddhists not be easily trained to just get on with acting with compassion... saving flies, helping old ladies cross the street, volunteering with the homeless etc. ? Compassion is a much more natural instinct than running into burning buildings... yet people are quickly trained to do exactly that. Just some thoughts... i'm not sure how much I agree, but i'd love to be able to work out a path to quick, consistent compassionate action. Thanks for your thoughts.
The thing with the disease carrying bugs etc. is that should an advanced alien race land here then they could look upon us exactly as we look upon those dirty flies and feel justified in killing us all... What then? Could we honestly say that they'd be wrong to in consideration of the pollution and destruction we impart upon our environment? Surely all things considered, human beings are much more dis-ease ridden and harmful than any bug. I think you would object to your extermination and consider it morally wrong, even if there was an equivilant evolutionary gap between them and us and us and the bugs. So, it's easy for us to sit on top of the pile and dictate a world that suits us best, but when we place ourself as the equivilant victim then suddenly our rationale is exposed as very unpallatable.
In terms of prioritising our compassionate action... My day to day work is with addicts, and I agree that human life deserves priority - if only because the more healthy humans I help to create then the better world they too will be creating for other lifeforms. But I look at my as entailing a sphere of influence, and when i'm at home in the kitchen making dinner and I see a fly trapped on the window then I catch it... I don't go around the house checking every window, I just flow with my life and where I see a chance to act with compassion then I do so. So it's not so much about prioritising, but doing what we can when we can do it.
Thanks for your reply.
In regards to your comparison between fire-fighters and buddhists. You're saying Buddhists can't be easily trained? Buddhist training isn't particularly easy, and the ideal is achievable, but comes at the end of a very long road. And remember we are all human after all; some of us don't learn that well, we're not energetic, bright enough. That's just the reality - and I'm willing to say that unfortunately I'm one of those lacking the skills. But I hope you'll give me and the rest of us a break.
By the same token, there are probably firefighters out there who don't come up to the mark of the ideal firefighter, and who wouldn't sacrifice their lives to put out fires.
But there certainly are Buddhists out there who have been trained to act with compassion, as there are some heroic firefighters who have sacrified their lives for others.
Interesting that I wouldn't give it another thought, and certainly wouldn't be thinking about it six years afterwards. No I wouldn't like to be exterminated. But if that was the fate of the world, and the aliens didn't really care what we thought, there wouldn't be much I could do about it, and I'd probably have to accept it one way or another. If there was a chance, I would definitely try and fight back though.
You can tell I'm not particularly emotional about this. If aliens really did land and seek to exterminate us I'd be a lot more distraught, like a civilian in the film Independence Day or something.
Personally it seems completely palatable, ie acceptable from an evolutionary point of view. Not that I have to like it. But that's just my view. Anyway it would be bad karma for the aliens. Seems perfectly rationale to me. There's a yawning gap between dealing with one fly or an infestation.
MK
Theoretical learning versus practical learning?
I think everyone comes to the Buddhist path for their own reasons. Everything from looking for a sense of completion within in a Buddhist community to anything you can imagine. Some purposes get dropped, some get transformed while others can simply get crystallized beneath spiritual clothing. Monkdom can be a spiritual opportunity but its up to each individual for when and how they take advantage of that.
I mention this obvious stuff to explain some monks actions, or lack of them, and to add my spin to the title of your thread.
Theoretical understandings are conceptual freebe's. Its just those understandings that remain brain bound until we pay the cost of becoming and manifesting them. That cost requires some sacrifice of our identity and everyone approaches that altar at their own speed, whether ordained or not. Could be a moment or a lifetime or beyond that.
Experiential understanding are just those understandings that we've actually paid for.
As for the fellow students not helping; it's hard to know who has which fears and aversions. For me it's natural to grab cup and paper and escort crawly things outside--for others, it's frightening.
I agree that ideally, if like you the other students and staff believed the flies were suffering, they would have helped you take them out. It's hard to know, after the fact, what was behind their various reactions, I suppose.
I hope I don't get myself in too much 'trouble' here, but I'd like to say - (withholding all judgement as best as I can) - this is how I see it:
Mindatrisk, you were in a situation where you were expecting / desiring the help of others. You did not get the response you expected/desired.
Which should you be more concerned about- having expectations of others; not having those expectations met; or why they were not met? Maybe there is nothing at all to be concerned about, but instead, just identify the parts to this situation and take each part "as is". You had expectations, they were not met, and you're not sure why.
As others here have mentioned too, maybe those you asked to help you were unsure of your motives, just as you are unsure of their motives for inaction.
Maybe they should not have questioned your motives, and just got up to help.
Maybe you should not have questioned their motives, and just continued without their help - while holding no judgement for them.
But then on the other hand, maybe they shouldn't have questioned your intent or motives and just gotten up to help with the flies. After which, they could have used the situation as a teaching tool to discuss everyone's perception regarding the motivations, actions and inaction of everyone involved.
Yea, that's what I would have liked to see happen. But then that would be my own expectation, right? :eek2:
Isn't it that being compassionate with flies would be being non-compassionate to those other life forms for which flies could cause problems ?
If yes, then are we morally justified in choosing to be compassionate with flies and not with those to which flies are harmful ?
It is usually seen in nature that what is good for one life form could be cause of suffering for another life form. Then can any of our action be can act of compassion with respect to all life forms ?
I feel usually none of our acts can be counted as act of absolute compassion (unless one is trying to save whole earth). In our daily life what we understand to be acts of compassion are simply those which somehow make us feel good, selfless, and pure from inside; and sometimes (as in the case of flies) it largely depends upon an individual's personal point of view whether an act can be a source of such good feelings for her/him or not.